Browse Notices

Green Dividends

The ideals of industry and environmentalism
today are often portrayed as locked in battle, as if it were impossible to achieve
success in one field without compromising the success of the other.

In Louisiana, especially, industry and environmental
interests tend to see themselves in opposition. Environmentalists cite some
Louisiana plants' continued violations of the federal Clean Air Act ("Save Your
Breath," Dec. 17) as examples of elected officials favoring business interests
over public health, while industries in this state argue that the government
doesn't go far enough to protect the businesses vital to the state's economy.

But according to a study by the federal Environmental
Capital Markets Committee (ECMA), not only is it possible to be pro-business
and pro-environment, but also the relationship can be, and often is, mutually
beneficial. Louisiana officials didn't heed that report, and they were not alone
-- the study went largely ignored across the nation.

ECMA is a committee of the National Advisory
Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, an independent federal advisory
panel to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Executives and directors
from such industries and agencies as Sunoco Inc., the Federal Reserve, Merck
& Co. Inc. and the National Wildlife Federation served on ECMA. In May 2000,
it released a report, "Green Dividends? The Relationship Between Firms' Environmental
Performance and Financial Performance."

The study identified current barriers between
environmental and economic objectives and suggested actions to remove those
barriers. "Innovators within industry, government and the environmental advocacy
community have argued that sound environmental performance is part and parcel
of good business practice," the report stated.

"Green Dividends" concluded that many firms
don't place much value on environmental strategies and performance, since the
financial advantages of these are "still a very uncertain science." Maybe if
more people had heeded the report -- in particular, the EPA itself -- the federal
government wouldn't be facing heated criticism that its latest changes to the
Clean Air Act are sacrificing environmental safeguards to help industries improve
profit margins.

The recent rollbacks to the New Source Review
(NSR) section of the Clean Air Act appear to support that claim, and Louisiana
activists are sounding the alarm that if industries nationwide will be permitted
to emit more pollution into the air, Louisiana manufacturers -- already facing
EPA violations -- will be among the nation's most egregious offenders.

NSR was based on the premise that aging power
plants in the 1970s would soon become defunct and could be exempt from new pollution-control
standards as long as they didn't make major modifications that would increase
emissions. If they did, NSR required that industries upgrade to the most advanced
technologies possible, to control the new source of pollution.

Manufacturers, refineries, power plants and
other industries complained they couldn't upgrade or expand their systems without
costly NSR-required pollution controls. Through powerhouse lobbyists such as
Marc Racicot and Haley Barbour, the current and former national GOP chairmen,
the utility industry pressed Capitol Hill to scale NSR back. The EPA -- with
administrator Christie Todd Whitman and President George W. Bush noticeably
absent -- announced the NSR rollbacks on Nov. 22.

The move ignited protests across the country.
Several northeastern states are threatening to sue the federal government out
of concern the changes will harm the air quality in their region. One senior
EPA enforcement chief, Eric Schaeffer, resigned in disgust over the NSR proposals
earlier this year and now directs a nonprofit dedicated to enforcing the nation's
environmental laws.

Among those praising the NSR rollbacks were
Louisiana's two Democratic senators, John Breaux and Mary Landrieu, both of
whom voiced their support of altering NSR early on. Breaux, in fact, wrote a
letter in March 2001 to Vice President Dick Cheney, condemning "EPA hurdles
to expanding refinery capacity."

That's not the best approach for our communities.
As stewards of Louisiana's industry and environment, both senators -- and, in
particular, Landrieu, who sits on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
-- would serve their constituents better if they took to heart the findings
of the "Green Dividends" report: that companies which figure out ways to manufacture
in a more energy-efficient manner, those that recycle, and those that avoid
leaking their products or byproducts into the air or water tend to experience
positive results in their bottom line. That would mean working with industry
as well as environmentalists to find innovative ways to manufacture and produce.

Several national environmental groups are
preparing to challenge the NSR rollbacks in federal court and to address another
proposal to change NSR. This one would clarify the meaning of "routine maintenance,
repair and replacement" for industries nationwide. Environmental groups are
asking the EPA for a 120-day comment period, as well as public hearings on the
proposed changes across the country. This is a reasonable request.

We urge the EPA and Louisiana's congressional
delegation to encourage industries to improve their environmental as well as
their financial bottom lines. Sens. Landrieu and Breaux also should embrace
the ECMA's "Green Dividends" report by supporting public hearings on the most
recent NSR proposal.